Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArtDaily


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

ArtDaily

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article, about an art news website, does not cite a single source and reads mostly like a news release, especially in the History section. A Google search of the website's name does not reveal any secondary sources that might vouch for its legitimacy or even mention its name.

I stumbled upon the website through this article, which doesn't seem at all like a professional piece of news, to say the least. Furthermore, I find it suspicious that the site calls itself "ArtDaily.org" while actually having a ".com" URL.

Additionally, the article's creator, User:Jvillarl99, sounds like he could be the website's founder, Ignacio Villarreal, which, if true, would be a clear WP:COI and make the article a blatant piece of self-promotion.

I put a WP:PROD tag on the article, but it was removed by User:Kvng, who said, "Volumes of incoming links (mostly in refs) indicates this may be a reliable source and may be notable. Deleting would create a lot of redlinks and this does not improve things for readers."

If this article can't be sourced with WP:RS, IMO it needs to go, especially if its existence leads some WP editors to believe that this site is a WP:RS for their articles. Armadillopteryxtalk 02:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete or draftify at the very least it needs WP:TNT. Over 100 WP in-links though, normally through citing articles it has written. Could not easily find valid sources which discuss it. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I should have probably clarified in the nomination that viewing the ArtDaily article I linked up there is important, as it indicates the kind of "journalism" that passes on that site. Seeing that (and finding zero WP:RS to vouch for ArtDaily) is what led me to initally WP:PROD the article. Armadillopteryxtalk 12:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 *  Strong keep for the benefit of readers. I know this is an unconventional keep reason but I do feel strongly about it and need to hear a practical (as opposed to policy) reason why this should be deleted. There are at least 100 articles on wikipedia that use this site as a source. Readers need to know that it is mostly based on press releases with minimal editorial control. I don't oppose replacing the content with something more WP:NPOV but we don't need to create the disruption of deleting first to do that. ~Kvng (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Question: The number of Wikipedia articles that cite ArtDaily is more than 100, but do you feel that that number that should be greater than 0? Would you, in good conscience, use it for your own articles? Keeping ArtDaily only because many pages presently link to it would seem to enable rather than correct the problem.
 * This site fails one of the fundamental criteria for being a WP:RS, which is to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Since you recognize that it is a publication "based on press releases with minimal editorial control," why do you prefer to keep its article instead of encouraging editors to re-source or remove claims that come from it? Given the lack of secondary sources that mention ArtDaily, we can't even source our own observation that the site lacks the resources to fact-check. Do you think that the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia are helped or harmed by keeping this article, whose simple existence will be enough to lead some editors to believe ArtDaily is a reputable source? Armadillopteryxtalk 16:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't really care how this one shakes out but do want to point out on the San Francisco museum of modern art page, one ArtDaily article has a link to this page and the other is a nonlink to ArtDaily.org. Shouldn't be all that hard to clean up if this page is deleted. SportingFlyer  talk  22:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is presumably OK to use this site as if it were a WP:PRIMARY source (i.e. carefully). I think the encyclopedia is helped by having an article about this source. We can and should edit the article to remove any content that makes it look any more reliable as a source than it actually is. If we delete it, we'll leave 100 redlinks and readers will make their own divergent assumptions. ~Kvng (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In principle I wouldn't oppose keeping this article if we could find reliable secondary sources that mention ArtDaily (i.e. anything that could be used to source the article). But there don't seem to exist any such sources, so what content could the article contain? At the moment the only possibility seems to be to overwrite one wholly unsourced article with another wholly unsourced article. That solution wouldn't be acceptable per policy or even common sense, IMO. In fact, I think that if the article is deleted, the "A page with this name has previously been deleted" tag at the destination could easily include a short warning about using the site in articles. Creating red links would, hopefully, draw the attention of editors who have used ArtDaily as a source to that message. Personally, I always click (newly) red links to see what happened to pages I know used to exist.
 * As for considering ArtDaily a WP:PRIMARY, I don't think it quite falls under that category. It seems to author little to none of the content that it publishes, so we can't know where any given article on the site comes from. It could come from a source close to an artist, it could come from a gallery, or it could come from a random troll, as the example I've linked above seems to. I think the lack of oversight and editing there makes it impossible to categorize, even as an unreliable source :-/ Armadillopteryxtalk 15:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see how a redlink could be an adequate warning to readers. A redlink would be better at drawing attention to the issue but would be worse than a bluelink at explaining what the issue is. ~Kvng (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Just not seeing (or finding) independent source which could established notability. Yilloslime T C  20:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - I did multiple Google searches, and there's no coverage that would indicate this site is in any way notable. Fails WP:GNG. And the reason is quite clear - it is a site built solely on copying and pasting selected press releases from news services.  If you subscribed to Business Wire or Marketwired and set up filters for art-related keywords, you'd be able to replicate this site. It's not rocket science. I looked at the first few articles that link to this site and the incoming links are there because editors used this site as an unreliable source.  Deleting this and causing redlinks would actually have the added benefit of alerting others to find alternate sources in all those other articles. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  21:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.